Pages

Wednesday, 3 February 2010

Resignations from Socialist Workers Party

Tony Dowling, a longstanding party activist, resigned from the Socialist Workers Party this morning. He was instructed by the local and national leaderships of the party to resign from the committee of the North East Shop Stewards Network (NESSN). The SWP has recently abandoned involvement in the NE network and insisted on Tony withdrawing from the committee and his role as Tyneside Secretary. Tony has, by resigning from the SWP and retaining his role in the NEESN, stressed his commitment to participation (as a revolutionary and a committed activist) in the wider working class movement.

The latest extraordinary attack by the SWP's Tyneside organiser - explicitly backed by the party's Central Committee - follows the letter of dissociation issued last November, which publicly declared that the SWP was distancing itself from Tony. That letter baffled many local activists, who viewed it as unjustified. It damaged the SWP's standing in the wider movement in the North East.

Here is Tony's resignation message:

Dear Martin,

As a lifelong revolutionary socialist & a member of the SWP for 18 years, I believe my loyalty is to the working class and, as the recent conference reiterated, “our starting point has to be our united front work.” Despite this, however, the district organiser, with the full support on the central committee has instructed me, “to resign from the NESSN committee with immediate effect.” This contradicts the spirit and traditions of the party I joined and cannot be justified politically. It is with regret, therefore, that I am resigning from the SWP.

Yours in solidarity,Tony Dowling

Eight other members of the party's Tyneside district have this afternoon emailed Martin Smith, SWP National Secretary, to resign in solidarity with Tony. Their letter (see below) makes it clear that their decision reflects wider difficulties in the SWP. These include the undermining of democracy and a series of personal attacks, including expulsions.

Here is their letter:

Dear Martin,

Tony Dowling is a well-respected activist in both the trade union and anti-war movements in the North East, and has been a dedicated Party member since 1992. Last week he was instructed by the SWP district organiser to resign his position as Tyneside secretary of the North-East Shop Stewards’ Network (NESSN), and to resign from the NESSN committee. We understand that the district organiser has the full support of the central committee. This attempt to isolate and discredit Tony is the latest episode in a long campaign of vilification.

Tony rightly believes that his loyalty is to the working class and to the revolutionary politics he has always argued for. He has, as a result, and with regret, resigned from the Socialist Workers’ Party.

It is in solidarity with Tony that we are also resigning our membership of the SWP. We remain committed to the politics of the SWP’s tradition, and are determined to build a stronger revolutionary left in this country.

However, we are no longer at home in the SWP with its current leadership and direction. Our decision to resign is influenced by the serious differences of perspective and orientation that have opened up between the leadership and ourselves. We believe that the sustained campaign against Tony and other members of the Left Platform taken by some supporters of the central committee, including disciplinary measures, show a serious corrosion of democratic rights inside the SWP.

The problems are especially acute in our own district, where the conduct of our current district organiser has worsened the climate inside the local party. As long as he is the party’s full-time organiser, it will sadly be impossible for comrades with dissenting views to feel safe, confident, and able to discuss their differences in Party forums.

Despite these difficulties, we look forward to continuing to work constructively with SWP members, in a spirit of unity and common purpose, as part of broader campaigns. In the struggles against war, unemployment, public sector cuts, ecological destruction, fascism and much more, we have common enemies. We remain on the same side in seeking to change the world.

29 comments:

As someone who has in the last 11 years in newcastle had many disagreements with Tony and other members of the SWP, I was still very shocked and suprised by the way he was attacked by members of his own party back in November.

I think unfortunately one of the problems with the SWP has been the way certain key individuals have been allowed to behave with support of the national leadership in a thugish and bullying fashion. In the past I have been threatened, called a fascist, barred and physically prevented from attending public meetings by the present organiser. I am also aware that he has physcially broken up meetings for instance a Workers Liberty fringe meeting a number of years ago at Marxism.

His arrogant attitude to towards any level of unity on Tyneside and having witnessed his attacking other Tyneside SWP organisers over the years has made many of the left find it difficult to work or build long term projects involving the SWP.

Unfortunately though this has gone on for many years and the leadership have nationally allowed this to happen (and locally it has appeared to many outside the SWP that this has also gone uncritised until more recently)

I hope that this period may lead to ex-members of the SWP in the north east to be able to work with others to build a healthier left tradition, but i think this may involve some reassessment of the politics of the SWP tradition that has led the party into a caricuture that has seen building itself and recruitment as the more important that developing ideas, or having a culture of debate and criticism in the organisation.

I don't know the comrades concerned, but I am concerned at the issue. Few years ago I was in Friends Meeting House, London when leading SWP 'intellects' told Bob Crow there was already a new working class party (I think they meant Respect) but that RMT could do something useful by launching a national shop stewards movement.I've had my doubts, feeling economism inadequate when we faced recession, but NSSN is up and running, and besides a forum for work struggles does provide a meeting place for those of us on the left who are active in the broader movement. But if members of SWP or any other political tendency are elected to represent workers that is a responsibility. That is the more so when we are talking about an "unofficial" movement to which comrades have probably had to argue for affiliation, and which has come under fire from sections of the union bureaucracy. We have also had to back at least one comrade in the NE against a de facto alliance of management, union officialdom and fascists. To expect people to just walk away from all that because the SWP is moving on to something else suggests light-mindedness, as though the comrades were supposed to tell fellow workers "forget what we said last week", or to need no explanation at all. The SWP is not unique, I have encountered things like this before, but far from "party building", in whose name it occurs, this fickleness and arrogance towards ordinary workers builds nothing. I don't know the comrades who resigned but I am inclined to side with them.

I hope this doesn't come through multiple times (having sign in difficulties)

Comrades, good luck and best wishes. I know it can be difficult to break with the party you have been part of for many years, sometimes decades, and with the social and friendship networks built up in and around the party.At least in the NE you have something of a critical mass- with 8 to 10 comrades it is certainly possible to stay together, function as a group and contribute to the building of a more open, democratic and inclusive left- and a defence of the best elements of the politics of the IS tradition is not a bad place to start.

Luke had trouble posting this comment directly, so he contacted me and I'm adding it here:

It's striking that a revolutionary organisation could so freely seek to give up its influence amongst the trade union rank and file - is the left really so strong that it can afford to tell its members to resign from such positions?

One of the more troubling aspects to all this is that it comes shortly after the hugely successful Right to Work conference.

Certainly, this was one of the most important conferences of the trade union rank and file for many years. It would be a shame if the SWP, however, concluded that now it should just 'go it alone', walking out of existing local co-ordinations of trade unionists in favour of launching their own campaign.

That's not to say Right to Work does not have great strengths over the NSSN. It doesn't focus exclusively on shop stewards and lay officials in the unions, but wants to build an open, grassroots campaign. It has explicitly backed the need for a rank and file movement in the unions to fight with the union leaders where possible and without them where necessary. And, unlike, many previous conferences it passed a battle plan - it was more than simply a talking shop - that adopted a set of clear, fighting policies for the trade union rank and file today.

In short, from the reports I have read and comrades I have spoken too, it was truly a breath of fresh air.

And what a great opportunity this is to the left in the NSSN to make the arguments from a position of strength. We can propose unity with every NSSN group, every NSSN member, around the policies and action backed by the Right to Work conference. We can propose the NSSN affiliates to Right to Work and sends representatives to its meetings - as it did, in the end, prior to this conference. Surely this is the way to go, rather than instruct members to resign from it. And the NSSN certainly can't be ignored, it has a stronger base in blue collar unions, as its last conference showed.

In North London, we don't anticipate the SWP taking this kind of view of things. Rather, we suspect they will, correctly, go to the existing local initiatives like Brent Solidarity group and Camden Unite, that both came out of the postal strike, and win these initiatives to backing Right to Work. Where there are no such local groups - which is, to be honest most places - then, of course, building Right to Work campaigns is without a doubt the way to go.

If we adopt a principled united front policy in the unions, if we put forward proposals to both Right to Work and NSSN on developing grassroots campaigns against cuts, for stronger rank and file organisation, then we can build a powerful movement against the crisis and a stronger anticapitalist, revolutionary left.

Well its clearly the product of fights going on over political orientation which were resolved at this years conference. Some who remain members are not reconciled to those decisions (which include precisely the RTW conference and the way it was organised: I remember rows about whether simply to proclaim united fronts or the need to build them up gradually and consensually etc). Some decide to stay. Others decide to leave. Its sad when it happens but thats the way with these things.

billjObviously I'm in no position to say what Left Platform supporters elsewhere are either thinking or doing.

EdYou aren't the only one who was shocked by the local party leadership's ostracism of Tony last November. I've heard many local activists and socialists express bafflement or outrage at it. Tony is greatly respected, including by those (like yourself) who have had disagreements with him in the past. This, I think, has a lot to do with his sheer energy and commitment as an activist combined with a non-sectarian approach.

Charlie PottinsI agree that nobody should be made to ignore or neglect established political relationships. NESSN is flawed but credible and serious. I should note that 4 of the people who resigned were at Saturday's Right to Work conference. All those who resigned want to now build Right to Work locally. It was Left Platform supporters - including Tony - who, within the SWP, argued for a major Right to Work Campaign at a time when the national leadership resisted it. There is certainly no hint of this being about some backing NESSN and others getting behind RTW - those leaving the SWP yesterday are desperate to build broad-based campaigning around job losses and the effects of economic crisis, under whatever banner.

RobMSorry about any sign-in difficulties (same to Luke). For Tony especially the decision will have been a tough one - he first bought Socialist Worker as a teenager in 1974, was active with SWP members in ANL in the late 70s, and was closely involved with the party during the Miners Strike, anti-poll tax campaign and at other times. He eventually joined the party in October 1992 and has been an active member consistently since then.

Curiously, we joined in the same month. I was a schoolkid at the time and encountered SW sellers in South Shields high street, a few days after Westoe Colliery's closure was annonunced (along with 30 other pits - incidentally Westoe is the pit Norman Strike was at, if you've read his brilliant Miners' Strike blog). The autumn of 1992 was the SWP's greatest surge in recruitment, due to a dynamic and highly active response to the pit closures. The contrast with how the party responded to the collapse of Lehmann Brothers is poignant.

LukeInteresting comments. The attacks on Tony have been driven by a couple of things. One is his role in helping initiate Left Platform, being willing to voice his criticisms and concerns. Another factor is his deep commitment to building in the spirit of the united front - and to building revolutionary organisation in that context. The current tendency - which is at its most acute in Tyneside - is to retreat into narrow 'party building', with a remarkable level of hostility from some local party cadre towards all sorts of people in the wider movement. These are the real forces behind the determined efforts to drive him out.

I should also re-iterate that neither Tony or I has an uncritical attitude to NESSN (or the national network it's a part of). There are, inevitably, political and tactical differences amongst those on the committee and beyond - the key point here is Tony's willingness to mobilise with others and simultaneously discuss and debate the issues. This contrasts with the approach increasingly adopted by some local party members.

Differences among revolutionaries are not resolved at conferences. They are resolved by history: in the practical test of action, in the crucible of struggle. This is part of the ABC of the tradition of Lenin, Trotsky and Cliff. What you're really saying is a sophisticated version of: we won an argument, you lost, and that's the end of that. Not good enough.

'Some who remain members are not reconciled to those differences' is to psychologise what is actually political. It's the same with the bizarre and offensive claims like accusing Left Platform supporters of 'nostalgia for the recent past' that the SWP Central Committee has indulged in. It is an evasion of proper, and principled, political exploration and discussion.

Your characterisation of views about RTW is simply wrong. Nobody I know has ever suggested united fronts are simply proclaimed - this is a caricature of carefully thought-out and serious positions. Your comment seems to me a rationalisation of the slowness of the SWP's response to a crisis that intensified 17 months ago.

I don't understand whats 'psychological' about referring to persisting political differences Luna. Although its a fair observation that your claim about political differences not being resolved at conferences but on the stage of history (could you perhaps issue some directions and perhaps how one obtains credentials and voting rights?) teeters between pomposity and meglomania. If this kind of thing is any guide to the day to day interactions of the district it has to be said it must have all been a bit tiresome. And no I don't think I'm guilty of caricaturing anything. The SWP is overcoming the wreakage and damage done both to ourselves and the left as a whole by the kind of approach you appear to favour, and in the meantime those who cling to these views caricature entering an electoral alliance, playing a part in rebuilding the anti-fascist and anti-racist movement, and helping launch a serious and credible conference with a rank and file orientation in the working class, as 'inward looking' and opposed to 'united fronts'. Its not hard to see why many comrades have'nt taken your positions seriously no matter how well thought out. Taken at face value they make little sense. Its also true that in these exchanges I'm reminded of the kind of awful, bullying, and undemocratic demagoguery that we're very thankfully leaving behind.

If you had bothered to respond to those political differences at all, you would have a point, but you put it down to comrades' failure to "reconcile" themselves to differences. Not to be "politically convinced" but to the comrades' failure to adjust to what everyone else said. This is attributing a psychological motive to what happened. It's typical of your general approach to this dispute in the SWP and its patronising to try and pass it off on a member of 18 years' standing, especially.

Alex and co. where the ones arguing months and months ago for RtW. Conference was a success but not a political "united front" in the way SWP would normally approach it. where were the TU leaders? where was the labour left? Its particularly weird just after trying to build a "rank and file" orientation to chase someone out of a prominent position what seems to be a well-established union activist network.

"awful, bullying and undemocratic demagoguery" fucking hell, have you any idea how you come across? or what might be pushing people out of the SWP in Newcastle? the statement makes it clear.

Well Night Tripper you seem to me to be just playing with words. Like most comrades I was politically unconvinced by the arguments of Left Platform. I also find that Left Platform tend to view all disagreement as patronising and/or insulting. So if comrades are worried about a tendency towards voluntarism, we are not allowed to debate it because apparently its an 'insult' and not 'political'. If comrades are worried by a tendency for some to appear stuck in a time warp they can't debate it because, again, its an 'insult'. And of course its not just comrades in Left Platform who have long experiance in the SWP. Discussion of RTW has been on-going for much longer then months and months. The Party was however concerned that it launched on the basis of real forces. Its clear that this has now been achieved. Its very clear that activists are attracted to proper united fronts that involve real forces rather then what are really just 'fronts', a few big names along for the ride to make the SWP look like its bigger then it is. Socialists don't build anything by dissembling, telling lies, or pretending they're something they're not.

You can get a flavour of the conference for yourself as Manchester Trades Council have put it up on their web:

As to what statements make clear or don't make clear, I'm afraid I'm not with you. To me its about as clear as mud. But I really want to hear no more whispering campaigns against a victimised trade unionist and class fighter, so please don't respond to that bit.

JohngThe letter from the 8 comrades makes this point clear: the conduct of the SWP's current district organiser has been unacceptable. This approach is the exact opposite of a whispering campaign, when people sneakily spread rumours nad gossip behind people's backs. These comrades, by contrast, are being clear, honest and accountable (they've put their names to the statement) - and they completely avoid any personal abuse. They also stress their continuing dedication to working with any SWP members who will co-operate in broader campaign activity.

Tony, however, HAS been subject to a series of malicious whispering campaigns. I experienced the same (or worse) prior to my expulsion. The contrast between how we have conducted ourselves and the behaviour of some is very revealing.

You make a number of assertions that have no evidence to back them up, no grounding in reality. Is there any evidence for a 'tendency towards for voluntarism'? No, of course not. There's never even been any attempt to present such evidence. The idea is to throw such claims around and hope people believe it on trust: if Alex Callinicos says people are 'Guevarist' then they must be. In the absence of evidence, it isn't political argument at all. It simply degenerates into name-calling and denunciation.

The same applies to the claim of being 'stuck in a time warp'. Where is the evidence? It's an especially odd claim because Left Platform supporters were notable for taking innovative and distinctively modern approaches, e.g. Ady C with the Counterfire website, Clare S and others with the Mutiny event last September, and those involved in the Signs of Revolt conference and art exhibition last November. These attempts at either utilising current technologies or shaking up tired old practices (or both) were all opposed strongly by the Central Committee. Meanwhile the SWP has returned to the comfort zone of 80-style branch meetings, which Tony Cliff championed as appropriate to the downturn (it had been quite different in earlier periods). I argued for an alternative, and more flexible, approach last April in an internal bulletin (in run up to the Democracy Conference).

So, such dubious claims are insinuation where we should have openness and clarity, psychology where we need politics and principle. Does the 'time warp' tag refer to us believing Stop the War remains a major priority? If it does, then say so - then we can have an informed, serious and respectful discussion about the issues involved. If not, then what is it referring to?

The stuff about 'nostalgia' etc. is political at heart though not entirely accurate imho: at least it implies (correctly) that the Left Platform are not analysing current realities and deriving tactical and strategic conclusions accordingly, but instead are fetishising a particular approach for other reasons. The conclusions are not derived from the current situation but are justified on a priori grounds by appealing to the centrality of (a certain reading of) the tactic of the united front. What strikes me as being particularly reprehensible about this is that it is essentially a matter of brand positioning on the part of the Left Platform leadership (they were associated with this approach at a time when it showed some results, and to continue to argue for this approach is implicitly to argue for the reinstatement of those associated with the argument).... to argue in this way is to abandon analysis in favour of metaphysics, but for personal rather than metaphysical reasons :-) It is true that to some extent this explanation isn't itself a strictly political argument, but it is certainly an accurate enough description of the dynamics of the situation for people to be able to draw the appropriatie conclusions.

In short, the criticism of the Left Platform position isn't always entirely political for the very good reason that the position of the Left Platform is itself not derived from a political analysis but revolves around an entirely apolitical intention of getting the initiators of the left Platform leadership their jobs back in the SWP leadership. That is what leads to silly arguments such as that if the SWP were committed to the united front they could, by definition, not call for one of their members to withdraw his position within a united front organisation. I mean, if that were true then surely it would mean that the leaders of the Left Platform proved themselves not to be committed to the united front back when they called for SWP members to resign their jobs working alongside george Galloway.

Left Platform outlined its political analysis - and also offered strategy and tactics compatible with that analysis - in its first document written for the SWP's pre-conference bulletins. This engaged thoroughly with the current economic and political realities, notably the major crisis in the system that has been the definitive feature of our larger context since September 2008. It is simply inaccurate to suggest this hasn't been done.

Do you really believe the 3 former Central Committee members involved in Left Platform wanted to return to the CC? That's just not plausible. Making a major stand against the current leadership's positions - knowing, at the outset, you'll only garner minority support while being vilified by the leadership and party apparatus - is an odd way of getting back on to the CC!

It is also patronising and offensive - and, to be honest, simply inaccurate - to assume that those particular individuals were responsible for the faction or were its 'leadership'. Goodness knows how you explain all the other party activists on the list of 60 signatories for Left Platform's initial document. Again, these cod psychology explanations just aren't adequate. They serve to lower the level of discussion.

On the united front: I am committed to the view that it is the key, defining strategic conception for revolutionaries in advanced liberal capitalist societies like our own. This is in line with Trotsky, Gramsci, Cliff and others. Yet the current CC seems keen to reduce the united front to being merely one of a number of tactics. Perhaps there is a theoretical difference here - it's hard to be sure, as the CC's positions are confused and contradictory.

At the level of practice there is certainly a difference. It's notable that most of the North East SWP members who have a track record in united fronts (Stop the War, UAF etc) became Left Platform supporters and have now left the party. Most of those members supporting the leadership are passive or only do SWP activity. The party locally is now going down an unarguably sectarian path.

Indeed John but if you look everso carefuly you'll see that by using words alone I am attempting to construct a political argument. Perhaps you would prefer some other means for me to do so, like interpretative dance, or origami. I am open to suggestions. Though you can put it down to "just playing with words" relative to your oh-so-sophisticated cod psychology. (How strange that Left Platform supporters should think arguments against them are "patronising and/or insulting" when subjected to such finely nuanced reasoning as displayed by John Game.)

It looks here like someone who seems to be a popular local activist has been hounded out of the party he's been a member of for nearly two decades. His views may be right or wrong but it doesn't look good to anyone.

(Were 70-80 per cent attendees RtW SWP? Honest inquiry. Wouldn't recognise a lot of them. Certainly there were no non-SWP TU leaders speaking who would have shifted the political balance away from a sort of syndicalism, SWP members with some exceptions did not argue against that drift. Whatever, its not a united front as the IS tradition would have argued, back in the day. Its not a TU rank-and-file organisation either. It's something different.)

No evidence of voluntarism? Well for most of us the wages of voluntarism were the experiance of the Left List debacle, the kind of appalling sectarianism that the SWP were dragged into as a result, and the belief that the STW movement mobilised less people because of a lack of commitment from the SWP. It also appeared in the shape of beliefs that there was some magic formula (usually constructed around the term 'united front' and a few references to Lukacs) which would solve the resulting objective problems. As is usual in these situations arguments were related to track records and the consequence of arguments.

The reason for the hostility to Left Platform were related to comrades experiance of the results of the kinds of arguments being deployed by Left Platform. Which were uniformally appalling and disasterous. Its no exaggeration to say that the period was probably the worst that the SWP tradition had ever seen: not objectively; but because of the boneheaded refusal to acknowledge mistakes and errors of perspective.

Left Platform simply represented a plea for a return to business as usual. And 'no thanks' was the uniform response. Its interesting that there are endless complaints about the SWP doing things differently here. One would bloody well hope so. A few media events of one kind or another do not represent anything more then 'business as usual'.

On Gueverism: This term was used prejoratively both by the pro-Moscow CP's in much of the developing world, but also by the European revolutionary left when faced with sections of the membership who took from Guevera the belief that 'revolutionaries make revolutions' and therefore substituted either leadership, students, or movements of one kind or another for the working class. Commitment to the self emancipation of the working class as a distinct form of politics means a decisive rejection of substitutionalism of all kinds and a commitment to objective analyses of social reality and a program of activities related to the strengths and weaknesses of that activity. It was a feature of the second kind of 'Gueverism' that it oscillated between ultraleftism and right wing adaptations to reformist politics: the common thread being a rejection of the central agency of the working class.

Many of us could see these tendencies in a lot of the literature of the Left Platform, and the way it gathered around itself different kinds of impatience of both the left and the right, all united by a belief that large breakthrough's could be made on the basis of the self activity of small groups of committed activists rather then the working class, whether this took the shape of electoral activity, or on the other hand claims about the dynamism of an older section of the leadership, or on the other hand different kinds of movement.

Neil Faulkner's interventions struck me as representing the far left of this interpretation (see Harman's excellent dissection in International Socialism) whilst the right of this argument focused on formally correct pronouncements about united fronts and decrying the role of socialist organisation (In retrospect, and for me it is in retrospect) both Molyneux's and Davidson's point about the belief that 'everything' had to be a united front were symptomatic here. As are today complaints that the 'Right to Work' campaign is 'something different' because it does'nt have Labour MPs.

Its noticable that despite being regularly confronted with political arguments (for example the difference between building united fronts in trade unions and, for example, the STW movement) no reply of any kind is forthcoming aside from declarations that the SWP is 'turning away from united front work'. That this is demonstrably untrue then becomes the occassion for saying that it isn't being done as it used to be.

Which most SWP members, and indeed most sympathetic to us, would greet with a hearty sigh of relief.

On Gueverism: This term was used prejoratively both by the pro-Moscow CP's in much of the developing world, but also by the European revolutionary left when faced with sections of the membership who took from Guevera the belief that 'revolutionaries make revolutions' and therefore substituted either leadership, students, or movements of one kind or another for the working class. Commitment to the self emancipation of the working class as a distinct form of politics means a decisive rejection of substitutionalism of all kinds and a commitment to objective analyses of social reality and a program of activities related to the strengths and weaknesses of that activity. It was a feature of the second kind of 'Gueverism' that it oscillated between ultraleftism and right wing adaptations to reformist politics: the common thread being a rejection of the central agency of the working class.

Many of us could see these tendencies in a lot of the literature of the Left Platform, and the way it gathered around itself different kinds of impatience of both the left and the right, all united by a belief that large breakthrough's could be made on the basis of the self activity of small groups of committed activists rather then the working class, whether this took the shape of electoral activity, or on the other hand claims about the dynamism of an older section of the leadership, or on the other hand different kinds of movement.

Neil Faulkner's interventions struck me as representing the far left of this interpretation (see Harman's excellent dissection in International Socialism) whilst the right of this argument focused on formally correct pronouncements about united fronts and decrying the role of socialist organisation (In retrospect, and for me it is in retrospect) both Molyneux's and Davidson's point about the belief that 'everything' had to be a united front were symptomatic here. As are today complaints that the 'Right to Work' campaign is 'something different' because it does'nt have Labour MPs.

Its noticable that despite being regularly confronted with political arguments (for example the difference between building united fronts in trade unions and, for example, the STW movement) no reply of any kind is forthcoming aside from declarations that the SWP is 'turning away from united front work'. That this is demonstrably untrue then becomes the occassion for saying that it isn't being done as it used to be.

Which most SWP members, and indeed most sympathetic to us, would greet with a hearty sigh of relief.

I feel the resignations are childish, and I am personally very disappointed with their decision. There has been many things I have disagreed about within the SWP, actions taken by my branch, conference or by the CC, but I have not felt the need to leave the SWP.

As I understand this, the Newcastle branch were not happy with the intervention by Tony in the NSSN. How can one remain a member of the SWP and take decisions that do not correlate with the democratic outcomes of arguments in the branch? How can there be democracy without accountability? No matter how many years you have or have not been a member of the SWP?

"Differences among revolutionaries are not resolved at conferences. They are resolved by history: in the practical test of action, in the crucible of struggle."

The sheer idiocy of Alex above to suggest that what matters is not democratic accountability but that the 'right' method is put into practice is thankfully something that the SWP has largely moved on from.

Dave: 'As I understand this, the Newcastle branch were not happy with the intervention by Tony in the NSSN. How can one remain a member of the SWP and take decisions that do not correlate with the democratic outcomes of arguments in the branch?'

You are of course absolutely correct. The point is that the Newcastle branch (more precisely, the district organiser plus a few others) were wrong to hold such views. The Central Committee was wrong to support their position. That is the crucial issue here - it is the politics and strategy that party members should engage with, rather than simply assuming the party leadership must be right and therefore backing it in demanding 'accountability' from an apparently errant member.

You might want to investigate what the actual issues are - this whole sorry mess certainly don't reflect well on the SWP, which is now so hostile to NESSN that the party refuses to even recognise the legitimacy of the NESSN committee. You'll have trouble getting a clear sense of the issues, precisely because there's nothing whatsoever of substance. If you read the piece from last November that I link to in the main post you'll get a flavour.

I'm not aware of a single non-aligned activist in the North East who opposes Tony. The whole business appears to people active on the left locally to be very strange. It is seen, correctly, as a factional attack within the SWP being carried over into the wider movement.

Revolutionary leaders gain respect from being more often right then wrong, on perspectives strategy tactics etc. Its not the case that tactics are right because revolutionary leaders think they are though. Its this that Alex just can't seem to understand. You are not right just because you think you are right. None of us are. Its why, in all these arguments, you seem incredibly indignant that people might not share your views, despite claims to the contrary, simply refusing to debate them (I am struck by a kind of hyper-vanguardism, which seems very 'left' but may in fact reflect the more mistaken side of our UF work where comrades developed bureacratic habits, up to and including treating the membership as a stage army rather then a body of consious revolutionaries).

Its an approach which does remind me of concrete examples of these weaknesses which led others to leave the organisation over respect. Encouraged to trample over comrades with doubts, they often ended up destroying the basis of the organisation in a particular district, and then with nothing else left, threw everything in with those to their right who they were working with. Harangues and opportunism can sometimes go hand in hand.

There is nothing 'Leninist' about this sort of thing. Its a rather older and more commonplace feature of many a campaign. Its not only revolutionaries who develop problems of moralism. Its generally mostly revolutionaries who develop a critique of it.

Its also why so many of us who have read the above simply can't believe some of the statements here about the 'stage of history' vs conference etc. Its almost beyond belief. How exactly is a body of socialists orientated on the working class supposed to respond to comrades who refuse all discipline but that which they wish to impose on others, and no democratic decisions save those they agree with, like the worst kind of bureacratic head of an NGO? A situation made far worse when those making these arguments have been responsible for some of the worst mistakes ever made in the entire history of our organisation, and remain, up until today, unwilling to discuss them.

Try getting up in front of a working class audience and carrying on like that. You will be greeted not with anger: but with laughter.

No precisely not. We find out if we are right through experiance and discussion. There has as yet not been a better way discovered of assessing experiance through discussion then democratic debate. Counterposing leadership to democracy in the way in which Alex did when contrasting conference decisions to 'the stage of history' is a form of solipism not Leninism.

RtW was not "united front work" as the IS tradition has conventionally understood it. Where were the TU leaders? Where were the Labour MPs? Nor was it a rank-and-file conference, as the IS tradition would understand it. It demonstrated very well the mood and the desire to fight, but politically it was unclear what it represented.

I find this endless talk about what the 'IS tradition has conventionally understood' rather counter-intuitive. Its not for nothing that orthodox Trots would regularly denounce us for our lack of consistancy, our opportunism, and indeed our syndicalism (depending on the moment sometimes all three). We've always eschewed treating historical writing on united fronts in particular historical situations as sacred texts. The Spirit not the Letter has been the emphasis. Its remarkable how much anon sounds like an orthodox Trotskyist rather then a member of the IS tradition. We are in a situation where we are having to rebuild rank and file resistance. It is obviously therefore different to the 1970s when we were launching rank and file initiatives on the back of waves of massive struggle. I see no absence of 'political clarity' in this. Secondly, it would be nice here to have some kind of political response to the argument that attempting to construct a united front around building industrial resistance neccessarily has a different form to the kind of united front work we do around the war.

That almost sounds like leadership by revelation! It also sounds like an alibi for unprincipled actions, whether ultraleft or otherwise, and a good explanation for the SWP's centrism (i.e. its tendency to zigzag between revolutionary and reformist tendencies). In fact it has me coming over all orthodox.

The whole problem is the monolithic method of the SWP tradition, which includes pretty much the entire UK far left. The idea that the leadership are "correct" until they decide they are wrong, and that everyone - that is all the members - have to follow this decision to discover whether its correct - and then if its wrong - how many times do they admit that? - it will be acknowledged after the event.In fact things are far less clear cut. Comrades on the ground will have probably a better understanding of the problems and opportunities in their local situation, than the CC far away in London. Why should they pursue a wrong tactic just because they are told its correct?Lenin on returning to Russia in April 1917 lost his demand for the taking of power with just 2 votes in favour. Should he have shut up until the revolution was defeated? Again in October he threatened to resign and campaign against the CC for the insurrection if they equivocated on the question of power.Of course after 1919 under the exigencies of the civil war, Lenin became unduly intolerant of opposition, but which should we follow? The party that lead the revolution, or the one that degenerated after it?The top down hierarchical method is the common currency of all the UK nominally Trotskyist groups, they are highly bureaucratic, intolerant and run by and for their apparatus.All of which flies in the face of the idea of the self emancipation of the working class by themselves. The methods of any working class party or organisation should be conditioned by the type of world it wants to build, that is one that is freer, without hierarchy and oppression than the one that we are in today.Unfortunately, the left - the SWP - by not just them - my own experience comes from Workers Power - indulge in the very opposite, they are intolerant of difference, abusive and bullying, refuse to allow discussion of differences outside their organisation and have a monolithic culture where everyone has to defend the "line". There is much difference made of the "differences" that divide the left. But the one thing that is never referred to is what they have in common. They are run for an officialdom which has a vested interest in keeping the left divided and apart. This is after all how they earn their wages.

Sad though this is, the above report and comments read like a far left version of Groundhog Day: we've seen this sort of thing so many times, and not just in the UK. Wherever the revolutionary left organises we witness the same problems: complaints of lies, slander, bullying, bureaucratic and anti-democratic CCs, etc., etc. Are we just unlucky, or is there a deeper reason?

I have tried to explain why this happens and will continue to happen, and what we can do about it, here: